Roland Martin on AC360: Confederate History Month Debate Part 1
July 16, 2010 by
Filed under confederate
Roland Martin appears on CNN’s AC360 to debate Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s Confederate History Month proclamation with Brag Bowling.
The states had the right to succeed and Lincoln did not want them too. When Davis used that defence at the supreme courtafter the war they decided to just drop the treason charge; as to oblige davis’s argument would essentially make Lincoln look like he was wrong over the whole affair. Years later one of the justices said the states did have the right to succeed.
Martin just proves you dont need to be on Msnbc or Fox to be an idiotic pundit. Hes there for his style more than his intellegence
I guess Roland thinks George Washington was a terrorist.. Please Roland give a clear and concise definition of terrorist.. bc the razing cities to the ground was not terrorism was it?
He just told You why Virginia seceeded Roland Martin…..ASSHOLE!
For you information Roland Martin, this Nation was Founded on treason….Just ask King Gorge the 3rd. The Rebals of 1775 were NO different than the Rebals of 1861!
As a Virginian, the Confederate Battle Flag be MY cross to bare, then I bare it willingly.!
That black pissed me off he thinks he knows what he is talking about but really he has no fucking idea. P.s I’m black so all you upidy assholes keep your dumb comments to yourself .
This is very interesting to watch and listen too. Thanks for posting it
@thecaliforniaknight He was an Indian/Native American. A member of the 5 civilized tribes of Oklahoma territory.
Rev. David Manning posted in two parts his viewpoint on Confederate History month. I dont know much about him but he does make good and fair point with regards to Confederate History Month, much more fair than any comment made by this ass wipe Roland Martin.
to celebrate Christmas either or wish someone a Merry Christmas if you dont like X-mas, BUT recognize that some Americans Do want to recognize these things and as Americans they have the Right to honor/recognize the Confederacy. I get it, it’s not your cup of tea but it is important to some people and they DO have the right to honor/remember the Confederacy and display symbols of it. If you are an American, which I’m sure you are, you and Roland Martin would respect that.
law, that the means the whole country including Northern states. Slaves were personal property via Federal Law. It was a crime to interfere with slavery. The Underground RR for all it’s noble qualities was a Federal crime and those involved in it criminals. So this viewpoint slaves/property as you put it was NOT Southern it was National protected by Federal Law, not Southern Law….no such thing. For celebrating the Confederacy, gee you don’t have to if you want to. You dont have cont.
@Doc418 Am I on trial? I didnt admit to anything because there is nothing to admit. You are doing the same with my posts that you are doing with the subject of the CW itself which is you select the bits and pieces of the story that fit your argument then lump it together and call it facts when in reality it’s just your opinion. I dont know what you missed when clearly stated US law, Federal law/govt, National law but slaves were property recognised as such by Federal/US/National Govt. cont.
@ke4bss Thank you for admitting that the South seceded because Lincoln wouldn’t compromise on the extension of slavery into the territories. Second, I like the fact you made the Southern argument as it was back then, that human beings could be treated like property. The immorality of the South’s view of people as property created the situation which led to secession and war, and that view was that slavery was morally right. Which is why no one should celebrate the Confederacy.
So, this was Not what they bargained for when thier States ratified the Constitution and joined the Union. To Southerners the Union only existed because of State participation/acknowledgement and Southerners believed that the Federal Govt, should have limited powers. All of the compromises that took place before secession were meant to keep balance in a system of govt where balance was key.
especially when J. Brown was hailed as some kind of hero for what he did all across the North. Southerners felt ganged up on and closed ranks, increased their local militias because from their point of view they could’nt guess what would happen next. Then Lincoln’s election as President when he didn’t appear as a legitimate canidate on Southern polls in the minds of Southerners was proof that the so called Federal govt was really being manipulated behind the scenes by powerful and wealthy men.
@ke4bss made them nervous. Southerners had increasingly become suspicious of what they already viewed as a strong centralized govt, something akin to the King from which their grandfathers had fought against. Remember that some founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson was skeptical of this new govt also and warned that it was the right of citizens alter or abolish it. Plus John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry Virginia did’nt ease the minds of all Southerners, cont.
@Doc418 Slavery was No sacred right. It was a practice protected by Federal law. Slaves were private property like a horse or plow is private property. So yes when the Lincoln adminstration wanted to no longer admit states to the Union below the Mason Dixon line as slave states, Southerners whether they owned slaves or not saw this as the Federal Govt. making policy with regards to personnal private property. cont.
@ke4bss I’m very aware of the Southern threats of secession before the 1860’s, however that doesn’t change the fact that Southern states seceded from the Union in 1860-61, because they wanted to expand the institution of slavery into the Western Territories, and they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as a threat to that “sacred right” of theirs.
@ke4bss It isn’t a false notion. The South wanted to extend slavery into the Western Territories to protect the institution, which is why the South supported the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The South also supported the annexation of Texas to expand slavery; supported attempts to annex Cuba to re-start the African Slave trade. You might call them “false notions”, I call them facts. Facts that you can read from the very leaders of the Confederacy before the war.
@Doc418 Not sure where this false nototion that the South Seceeded to Protect Slavery when there were NO laws on the books at the time to interfere with the practice but there were active laws to Protect the practice of slavery below the Mason and Dixon.???
@Doc418 For your information Secession thtreatened the break up of the Union before 1860 for reasons that had Nothing to do with slavery. Also, many of those states who contemplated leaving or separating from the Union, even for a short time, were Northern states……again had nothing to do with slavery.
@ke4bss
And what do you think cause secession? Oh yeah, that pesky question about the expansion of slavery into the territories. It doesn’t matter how hard you try to push the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth, the fact is, Southern states seceded to protect slavery and fought to protect slavery. And even worse, their leaders even declare that the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy was the believe that Whites should have dominion over blacks.
@ke4bss
The last Confederate General to surrender his command was Not a white man!
What was he.
@ke4bss Furthermore, in 2001 about 30% of blacks in Mississippi voted to keep the 1894 state flag, which displays the Confederate flag in the upper left corner. A gray area You choose to ignore. By the way, how’s that research going on why Southern States seceeded?
@scbluesman13 I read a newspaper within the past year that a black family in Mississippi finally laid a Black Confederate ancestor to rest, with full ceremony, complete with the Confederate flag and Confederate re-enactors to fire a salute in his honor. When questioned his Great Granddaughter said he would be honored by this ceremony and was happy that his service was finally being acknowledged.